So go back and reread what I've already posted you lazy sod.
What's lazy? I've already dealt with your drivel, as well as others like Juan and Zzarchov have. But I can go through your crap again, that which I haven't responded to.
Everywhere including other planets! :roll:
Seriously, GW is obviously horse $h!t.
Well, we already have dealt with the other planets. Unfortunately for your weak argument, the theory behind GW is not dependent on different conditions that have caused an increase in heat content on other planets. The same physics is involved of course.
Next.
I'm not the one having trouble with this very simple logic. The Earth, Mars and Jupiter are all warming up. I am not so stupid that I think we are the reason. If you can explain how my carbon emissions are causing global warming on Mars and Jupiter then I will concede you have a point.
But you are stupid enough to think that changes in dust on Mars causing 'purported' warming, and Jupiters internally driven temperature change, although different, and different from our own planet, are enough to throw out over 100 years of radiative physics, the same physics that is used to claim climate change on other planets.
Simple logic indeed.
I remember when this GW stuff started. Scientists discovered that green house gases were the cause of high temperatures on Venus. Some speculated that temperatures on Earth could be affected by the same gases. Someone got a grant and boom here we are.
I didn't realize you were alive in the 1800's. Geez you are an old fart aren't you?
The point is that the concept of GW wasn't even born here and didn't have anything to do with Earth. Some scientist went for a grant and built on an established theory. Science is very vulnerable to this kind of folly - it really is a culture of following the guy with the longest beard.
You're just proving your ignorance now.
Read
this for a good history, rather than your silly conspiracy nonsense.
Earth is not Venus and the fact that two other planets are also heating up means GW for Earth is false. Maybe not entirely but definitely mostly.
Again, your faulty logic. How many analogies does it take for you to realize that argument is logically invalid?
Our emissions here on Earth are no where near bad enough to turn us into Venus and never will be because of anything people do.
That's not even the claim of what might happen in the future. That is your straw man argument.
The whole planet is in this mess simply because some scientist somewhere wanted a grant to do a study and a US politician with a partisan agenda decided to panic the world.
The whole planet is doing just fine. Living things are in this mess because of the ignorance of our species.
I don't think so:
Planets all have the same furnace: the sun. Planets differ by atmosphere not by furnace. So if the temperature is rising on all the planets then obviously the increase has to do with the furnace (source of heat, the sun). Since planets all have different atmospheres it is extremely unlikely and utterly improbable that many planets would all experience warming due to new planetary conditions; even if all the planets were suffering from global warming (which seems probable from the evidence) the reason could not be (nearly zero probability) that all their atmospheres are simultaneously changing to capture more heat. The planets are warming up because of another factor; a factor that they all share in common; like the sun, proximity to it or some other as yet unknown factor. It isn't because of our carbon emissions - it just isn't. Carbon emissions from pollution are an isolated atmospheric condition of earth and not a condition shared by all the planets.
But Jupiter is warming from internal dynamics. That alone shoots your theory dead in the barrel. Do you even read this stuff before sticking your foot in your mouth?
I think we're going to have to learn how to live with it since we don't have any idea what is causing GW. Likewise there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are subject to natures cycles, she is not subject to us; this is even more true now since this cycle seems to be solar system wide.
You don't have any idea. Those who work in the field do. Those who read the journals might have a chance.
Like I asked before, do you even read primary documents, or is it all some foolish conspiracy crap?
Perhaps reducing carbon would help for now but there is no reason to think such a policy will help in the future or assist the other planets going through the same thing.
Who wants to assist other planets? They're doing just fine, and in case you didn't notice, as far as we know this is the only planet with any life on it. The only planet with eco-systems comprised of myriad living things. The only planet that responds biotically to imbalances in nutrient cycles. Why should I give a crap about dust storms on Mars?
I think we're better off trying to assist people who are in trouble because of climate change instead of creating a new economic bubble to line the global elites pockets with even more cash.
See, you're so out of touch with the science, you don't even know what the policy debate is shaping up like. Learn about cap and dividend, and revenue neutral taxes. The global elites are doing just fine as it is now, I doubt they care how much petrol costs, or food.
I don't think channeling inflation into GW technology will work any better than it did to channel it into housing. Eventually people will catch on.
You're clueless about economics too. GW technology means infrastructure. In case you haven't noticed, over the past half century infrastructure spending increases have always been a great stimulus to economies.
What we need, more than anything else, is a sustainable global economic model. That really might save our environment and the planet.
Well thanks for that Captain Obvious.
I didn't say that. What I said is that we don't know that removing it would do anything about GW because we don't know what is causing GW.
Again, you don't know. Doesn't mean the rest of us have our heads in the sand.
So my original argument was that it makes no sense, in times of economic hardship and corporate migration east, to further straddle our economies with the burden of reducing emissions when the east isn't even slightly interested in doing the same. There is no proof that our doing such a thing is going to keep change from happening because, clearly, we are not the cause of the change in the first place.
That's a legitimate concern, one that doesn't deal with the science.
There's no possibility that things can get better when the solution is to ignore it. Trade agreements? Tariffs?
I disagree, it has everything to do with what is happening here. The odds of three planets all simultaneously heating up in the same decade for different and unrelated reasons is so vastly remote that it can not be a coincidence. It is simply so improbable that it can not happen. There is and must be a common reason for the increase in temperature.
You're ignorant. What do we have in common with those planets, besides a measured heat content that is increasing? If it's happening on these three, why not the rest? Why isn't the Moon warmer? Or Mercury? Or Venus? Why do they not show similar trends (the actual warming trends aren't at all the same, and can't possibly be due to an increase in solar radiation due to the magnitudes of change, and distance from the sun?)
So what could be causing all these planets to warm up? All your arguing is that the completely improbable is probable, therefore your probably wrong. Smart money would bet against you.
There's a number of bets right now. Smart money is on warming. I already offered one to one of your ilk here on this site. Feeling lucky punk?
I tend to think that maybe there are forces at work or extra planetary environmental factors at work that we don't know about. Is the sun warmer; are we closer; is there another factor?
I see...and those extra forces must also cancel out the forcing impact of increased greenhouse gases. So, it must be a positive forcing, but come with a negative feedback enough to swamp the signal from greenhouse gases. That's highly unlikely. If the DSCOVR is ever launched we'll know. Again I'm betting against you on that possibility.
But to say planetary bodies in our solar system are warming up and it has nothing to do with the sun, that every occurrence of warming (including moons) is due to localized conditions and has nothing at all to do with common conditions, is a logical fallacy and in gross error; just like saying curbing green house gas emissions will stop GW is a logical fallacy and a gross error. It may help slow it down (I will agree with that) but it will not stop it because it isn't the cause, therefore it hasn't the ability to stop it.
You just don't understand the difference between an increasingly intense sun, and increasing greenhouse gases trapping the radiation we already are exposed to.
I thought you said we don't know what the cause is? You think you can rule out greenhouse gases? I'd like to see that. You're the one claiming the theory is bunk, but all you have is empty rhetoric. Again I ask, what primary documents have you read? Did you read the papers discussing climate change on other planets? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no, or you wouldn't hoist it like some kid at a science fair without knowing what the details even look like.
Seriously, any actual disagreements with science besides logical fallacies like non-sequitur, straw men, and red herrings? Do you even know where to begin with the science? Or do you use purely faulty rhetorical devices in place of observation and empiricism?
:roll:
